Re: Glorantha Digest V2 #368

From: Brian K. Curley (Master of Time & Space) (bkc@axle.adp.wisc.edu)
Date: Wed 07 Feb 1996 - 05:36:32 EET


On Tue, 6 Feb 1996 Peter Metcalfe <P.Metcalfe@student.canterbury.ac.nz>
got entirely too serious and wrote:

> Brian K. Curley:
> ================
>
> Let me guess. The Crucifiction parallel was too big for you to handle.
> Do you have Shamans in your version of Glorantha? They don't like
> being destroyed by the Bad Man when they're on their Shamanic Initiation
> but this thing is necessary so they can gain their fetch. But according
> to your PoV, the Shamans are dead and don't come back.

Still doesn't prove a thing about the Red Goddess "wielding" Argrath and
being dismembered by him because she wanted to be. True for one, or even
many, is not true for all.

> >I know Greg said he could understand one *could* reach that conclusion, but
> >he didn't say one *should*.
>
> Get the paraphrase right: he said that one could reach that conclusion
> (that the Lunars were victorious) _on_ _having_ _read_ _KoS_.

Wow. Big difference.

> Then why are you so eager to dispute the conclusions reached by Nick?
> All we have so far is a book written by one _side_ of the Argrath-Red
> Moon War. All Nick is doing is outlining a case for a Lunar Victory
> while maintaining consistency with what has been written in KoS.

Because this is a *discussion*. If there is to be only one side then
it's called a lecture. I don't need to be lectured by you.

==================

"Harald Smith (617) 724-9843" <SMITHH@A1.MGH.HARVARD.EDU> wrote:

> You have reached the core of the whole piece--it's all supposition and
> inference (including KoS) and all based on the perspective you want to
> bring to it. Since the argument seems to have reached the 'TIS/'TISNT
> stage, I suggest that those who want to continue on in that vein take
> the discussion offline.

Agreed. I was not trying to reach an objective, absolute truth. Nick
was clearly putting forth a view that a loyal Red Moon follower would
have. I was countering with my version of the Orlanthi perspective. It

wasn't until I started getting the "Brian doesn't know what he's talking
about" flak that I responded in my own voice. Sorry to everyone I
burdened with this.

===================

"D. Pearton" <pearton@u.washington.edu> wrote:

> IMHO Nick and Phillipe are arguing about two different things. Phillip
> is stating that the demise of the physical manefestations of the Lunar
> Empire and the moon signals the absolute demise of everything Lunar and
> any remanents of lunar influence. Nick and others (and I place myself in
> this category) argue that this was merely a necesary step in the
> continuing evolution of the _Lunar_Way_. The Lunar Way is not the Lunar
> Empire. The Lunar empire is a neccesary step and part of the process of
> the evolution of the Lunar Way, but it is not the be-all and end all of
> it. The Lunar way, by it's very nature, embraces change and views
> stagnation as its antithesis (a reflection of the Red Goddess's birth in
> time perhaps?). The Goddess herself has gone from death, to "mortality",
> thence to deity (with physical limitations) and the utuma ceremony
> performed by Argrath (witingly or unwitingly) moves her to a far more
> transcendant level. All this is prefigured in what has gone before and
> is as valid a reading of the "facts" (whatever those are in Glorantha) as
> any other.

I was going to post something very similar, but you beat me to the
punch. I concur that the Lunar Empire is not the Lunar Way. I could
possibly be convinced of the ultimate victory of the Red Goddess's
philosophy, if not the Goddess herself. But the Lunar Empire was, at
best, the imperfect earthly expression of the Red Goddess's philosophy
(just as the Catholic Church is an earthly expression of the Christian
God's teachings). The Lunar Empire was destroyed, as the Goddess herself
might agree was the fate it deserved.

Brian

+-------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| Brian Curley | I'm your only friend... I'm not your |
| Holder of Previous | only friend, but I'm a little glowing |
| Knowledge | friend but really I'm not actually |
| bkc@axle.adp.wisc.edu | your friend but I am... |
+-------------------------+------------------------------------------+

------------------------------


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 16:29:19 EEST